Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the derogation from the EU energy products directive, allowing the use in private pleasure craft of rebated gas oil or red diesel, is due to expire at the end of this year. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement in March that the UK would apply formally to the European Commission for renewal. This decision is based on the evidence set out in a partial regulatory impact assessment published at the Budget of the likely effect on the UK, if the derogation were to end.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is right to say that the issues are discussed bilaterally. A number of thoughts were advanced by President Chirac in that speech. As, I know, the noble Lord is aware, we have long taken the view that the whole of our nuclear strategy is operated through NATO conventions and in adherence with international law as operated through NATO. That is still the way in which we prefer to ensure our collaboration with other nations.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, this Motion gives me the opportunity to point out briefly that, out of the 179 noble Lords who voted for the Motion on 25 April, five—almost half of those proposed—are going to be members of the Joint Committee. Of the 95 who voted against the Motion, none will be given places on the committee. I do not wish to expand on this; I am just mentioning it as a matter of interest to show the way in which the wind is blowing.
	The second reason why I find this Motion useful is that it presents another opportunity to express my feeling that the appointment of a Joint Committee to look into the conventions of this House is out of place and odious. I do not think that one can be blamed for repeating those sentiments again and again. I fear, and the Government must hope, that the committee's study of the conventions will somehow help them on a further step down the road to the reduction of your Lordships' House to the status of a laundry. I do not say that a laundry is not needed to tidy up the legislation which comes before us in such bulk, but the idea that we should simply wash and tidy up and iron the laundry and then deliver it again to its source seems unacceptable.
	I just wish to say a word about the respect and regard in which we who belong to political parties—I exclude those who have the distinction, and I mean "distinction", of being Cross-Benchers—all hold for those who sit in front of us on the Front Benches. But there are moments when that respect begins to wither slightly, and there is a degree of concern and even alarm when one is confronted with the spectacle of the Front Benches of opposition parties combining to give aid and comfort to the Government in getting out of difficulties which are entirely of their own creation.
	I know that your Lordships do not wish to listen to a long speech from me—I am very glad to have the noble Lord's agreement to that—but I turn to my amendment. I dismiss at once any notion that may be abroad that it has a content of hostility towards the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I have spoken to him and have explained my reasons for putting the amendment down. I have also ventured to express, absolutely genuinely, my regard and admiration for him. On 25 April he made a most admirable speech. There were two things to which I particularly call your Lordships' attention which I regard as a message that should be at the forefront of the Government's mind at all times. He said:
	"We must split off our task as parliamentarians putting in place a Parliament that can keep an over-powerful executive"—
	I repeat: can keep an over-powerful executive—
	"in place and the desire of some on those Benches to make life easy for the government Chief Whip of the day".
	It could not have been put better. At the end of the same column, the noble Lord went on to say—I was so pleased to hear this:
	"I am determined that it should still retain the right to say no. Unless it retains that right, we are on our way to a unicameral Parliament, with a debating Chamber at this end, and with that would come all threats of the elective dictatorship which Lord Hailsham warned",
	of some years ago. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord on that. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, with a rather abrupt change of gear, he reached a somewhat eccentric conclusion, when he said:
	"We on these Benches will enter into these discussions with good will, generosity of spirit and a determination to succeed".—[Official Report, 25/04/06; cols. 78-79.]
	Those words, too, would have been welcome had there been the slightest sign of them on this topic coming from a government source. They never have.
	I do not wish to dwell on my impartiality in these matters, from a party point of view, but had the noble Lord, Lord Cope, my friend of long-standing, been named as a member of this committee, I would certainly have included him in my amendment today. Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he made an admirable speech. He gave a serious warning that members of the committee would need something—perhaps short of the wisdom of Solomon, but certainly miraculous powers—to sort out this difficulty. My noble friend perhaps took too much comfort from the weasel words in the terms of reference, which were,
	"to consider the practicality of codifying the key conventions".
	It is hard to believe that a committee of 24 or 25 people will sit down to the serious consideration of merely codifying them. It is beyond human nature that they should be expected to confine themselves to such limits. Of course, they will do nothing of the kind.
	My noble friend might also have given a thought to something that I have mentioned before. These conventions are House of Lords conventions. One wonders, even if it is not strictly speaking a convention that one House does not interfere in the affairs and rights of another, nevertheless whether good manners and common courtesy might have prevented this unfortunate intrusion on this occasion. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, to leave out "L. McNally".—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke of a deadline. During the previous debate on this topic, almost every noble Lord who spoke said that it was open to the committee to put in an interim report. Upon advice received from a short distance to the noble Baroness's right, I said that that the committee did not have to come back to the House, but could merely put in an interim report and get on with it later. Is the noble Baroness now saying that is wrong?

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I would like to support the amendment put forward by my noble friend. Like him, I am second to none in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord McNally, not least in the splendid speech in which he vowed that he would not see any reduction in the powers of this House. However, it seems to me that my noble friend made one mistake when he said that we were being treated like a laundry. If my noble friend sent his shirts to such a laundry, they would come back dirty. It would not even have had time to dry them, let alone wash them properly.
	When the original Motion was put before the House, I asked the Leader of the House about the timetable. I think that was on around 25 April, about a month ago. I complained that there were only three months for the committee to carry out a complex and difficult task. One month has been spent getting to the point where the names of the Members of this House who should serve on the committee have come before us. Presumably, the remaining two months are to be spent dealing with these complex issues.
	My main concern, which the Leader of the House refuses to address, is why the 21 July deadline—the noble Baroness used the word "deadline" this afternoon—was imposed. Why is there a deadline? What is the agenda? I believe it is quite clear for all to see; it is to try somehow to contain the powers of this House before arguing for an elected membership of this House in order to advance the entirely dishonest and disreputable argument that, if Members were elected to this House, the powers of this House could be reduced or, indeed, maintained as they are. It is perfectly clear what is happening.
	We now learn that the Lord Chancellor, who has not stayed to hear the remainder of the debate—an initiative that he started—is no longer having meetings with the party leaders. We hear instead that the former Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, will have meetings from time to time with relevant people. What does "from time to time" mean? Which people will he meet, and as part of what process? Does "from time to time" fit in with the committee's leave to report from time to time, which is in the Motion?
	My third question, to which my noble friend has alluded, is how on earth a committee of more than 20 people can tackle these issues. If they all spoke for five minutes, that would take up most of the time available for one meeting. Members of the House of Commons—I plead guilty as a former Member of the House of Commons—are not as knowledgeable or as aware of the good work done in this place as they should be. The whole process of simply introducing them into our procedures and deciding how they will operate will take time.
	I regard the Motion as yet more contempt for the processes of this House. It is a wonder that the Government bother to lay Motions before the House at all, because the party leaders are talking behind the scenes about the future of this institution, and no party has a right to determine the future of this institution. The issues at stake are important, and are worthy of wider consideration and public debate. This timetable and way of proceeding make a farce of it all.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I shall not repeat the debate that was held some little time ago when the House took this decision, but will instead respond to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whose point I take well. The committee will decide the chairmanship, but it does of course have a government majority, so the government majority will decide who the chairman will be on the assumption that Members in another place actually turn up to meetings—they do not have a very good reputation on Joint Committees, but that is by the by. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, why in those circumstances he wants to reduce the number of Opposition members on the committee.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise for that. I was given the impression that noble Lords who were to serve on the committee had been advised that the first meeting would be tomorrow morning. However, the idea of going around the Houses to get agreement on a first meeting from 22 Members would not be easy. Therefore, it is best if a date is proposed. On tomorrow's Order Paper, noble Lords will see that I am proposing another Joint Committee of both Houses, probably of a less controversial nature than this one. But that is due to have its first meeting on Thursday, which is two days later, instead of one. So that is not unusual.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, pointed out rightly that there will be in total on this Joint Committee of both Houses 11 Labour Members, six Conservative, three Liberal Democrat and two Cross Benchers. If my mathematics is right, at present there is parity of membership between the Labour Members and the rest. However, if the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is agreed, that would give the Labour Party a majority.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should not have said that, lest I tempt the noble Lords behind me. I am not sure whether there are any other questions which are specifically addressed to me as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. All I would say again to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is that membership of the Committee of Selection is not entirely the usual channels. There are three Back-Bench Members and also the Convenor of the Cross Benches on it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was himself a member of the Committee of Selection once upon a time when he was Chairman of the Association of Conservative Peers. I would also say that this committee's membership was agreed by the House at the beginning of the Session, as is usual with these committees. If Members have any proposal to alter the membership of the Committee of Selection, that would be a different matter.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, I hope that I can still come in to support my noble friend Lord Peyton. The Leader of the House said that the question of curbing the powers of the House was completely untrue. As I remember it, there was a proposal that this committee should consider the whole question of timetabling the amount of time that it took Bills to go through this House. If that is not a curbing of the powers of your Lordships' House, I do not know what it is.
	It is very important that the committee represents the views of the majority of Members of this House. As I see it, there is an overwhelming majority on the Labour and Conservative Benches, and probably on the Cross Benches, for an appointed House. It would be a great pity if the committee did not represent that. The Liberal Democrats of course pretend that they are in favour of an elected house, but, as on many other issues, they are split half and half.
	I had intended to say that I was totally sympathetic with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, being on this committee, but since I have heard him speak, he is clearly part of the half of the Liberal Democrats who believe in an elected House. For that reason, I am rather uncomfortable about having him on the committee at all. Therefore, I am afraid—

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Clause 26 was added to the Bill at a very late stage in its progress in the other place and without any prior consultation. The new restrictions pose a serious threat to the trade and to users of air weapons. No evidence has been adduced to show that air weapons sold through registered dealers are more or less likely eventually to be involved in cases of misuse, and there is no evidence that retailers not currently registered are irresponsible in their dealings with the public.
	There are about 2,500 firearms dealers spread across Great Britain, of whom between 1,000 and 1,200 sell air weapons by retail. The remainder are specialist dealers, or those who do not sell by retail. There are between 1,000 and 1,200 retailers of air weapons who are not registered dealers. Thus, there are some 2,400 retail outlets for air weapons spread across England, Wales and Scotland. It follows that in many areas, particularly in rural areas, direct access to a retailer of air weapons would involve considerable time and expense.
	If a person or company now retailing air weapons decides to become a registered firearms dealer, they will be involved in very considerable expense and time-consuming bureaucracy. If they become a registered dealer, they will then be able to stock and sell all classes of firearm and ammunition except those to which Section 5 applies. The fact is that levels of trade and profit are such that many existing retailers of air weapons will simply cease to trade. Legitimate sales of air weapons will be reduced and the trade will be very seriously affected.
	Air weapons are the gateway to other shooting sports. A diminution in air weapon sales will have a knock-on effect for all shooting sports. If a reduction in the number of retail outlets is coupled with a requirement for "face to face" sales, which the Government propose in Clause 27, those in rural areas will be particularly hard hit and many will be deterred from acquiring air weapons.
	I have every sympathy with the proposition that air weapons should not be sold at car-boot sales, from market stalls or other such places, but the present proposals will not ban such sales by individuals otherwise than by trade or business. It is accepted on all sides that registered firearms dealers should continue to be able to sell air weapons along with other firearms and ammunition.
	The amendments would create a simpler system of licensing; simple tests of the character of the licensee; an extended period of validity, varied in the first instance to avoid a bulge in renewals; simplified security requirements, and simplified registers and record keeping; an alternative regime of police inspections and supervision; reduced costs to the retailer and a reduced administrative burden on the police. They would also ensure that the trade in other firearms is concentrated and more readily supervised by the police. I commend these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.

Earl Peel: Have the Government assessed the likely effect of this part of the Bill on retailers? Having listened very carefully to what my noble friend said, I can come to only one conclusion: this is another attempt by the Government to reduce the number of air guns in circulation. Will the Minister confirm one way or the other whether that is government policy?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I put on record my thanks to the noble Earl for tabling the amendment, because it usefully enables us to spend a little time on the vexed question of air weapons. I will endeavour to explain as well as I can our general approach to this and deal with some of the points that have been raised. If I should miss any points, I undertake to try to perfect the answers we provide today.
	At present air weapons can be sold by any retailer from corner shops to car boot sales, as I am sure noble Lords will attest. They can also be bought fairly easily by mail order or via the internet, with little check on the age of the purchaser. This can all play a part in the unacceptably high level of air weapon misuse. It is worth reminding ourselves that in 2004–05 there were some 11,825 crimes in which air weapons were used, resulting in 1,502 cases of injury, including 143 cases of serious injury.
	I am also conscious of the fact that there have been a number of high profile cases of air weapon misuse, including the tragic killing of two year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow. We have been looking very carefully, particularly with Scottish Ministers, to see what more can be done to tackle the problem. We have concluded that restricting the points of sale would tackle the problem at the source. I realise that it is a sensitive issue, and I fully understand that there are entirely—and this covers the majority of cases—legitimate uses of air weapons.
	Clauses 26 and 27 address the problem of misuse by requiring retailers to register with the police. In this way, retailers will be accountable to the police, the anonymity of purchasers will be removed, and casual sales will be deterred. Responsible shooters will still be able to purchase air weapons, but it will become harder for irresponsible people to do so. As I understand it, the amendment was entirely motivated by concerns about the impact that Clause 26 will have on shooting sports. I understand that. It is feared that the clause will deter retailers from selling air weapons, making it more difficult for people to take up shooting sports. I think that I can be confident in saying that we intend to address those concerns without needing to create the separate set of controls envisaged by the amendment.
	In a sense, we want to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, desires, which is to get the balance and burden of regulation and bureaucracy in the right order. The Government are clear that retailers need to register with the police, but we do not want that to be unnecessarily onerous on those retailers who deal only in air weapons. We will be making rules that will set out proportionate record-keeping requirements, and we will be issuing guidance to the police on a proportionate level of security. We will consult the trade carefully on both issues, and I recognise how important those issues are to it.
	I will work through some of the specific questions. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that we were attempting to slide in a policy of simply reducing the number of air weapons. That is not the intention of the policy. We are trying to reduce the potential availability of air weapons to criminals; it is not a back door way of getting at those who legitimately need to use air weapons for their sport. There was also the question about the national firearms licensing management system. I know that there are many in your Lordships' House who share my view that it has taken far too long and that it is not the best advertisement for the implementation of important legislation. That system is close to fruition. It is concerned with certificate holders, and it will not apply to air weapons, so it is a bit of a red herring to enter that issue into the debate.
	We think that we have got the balance about right. We hope that we can work carefully with the trade, and we do not want to overburden it. Those retailers who are already registered as firearms dealers will incur no extra cost; other retailers will have to apply to the police for registration and pay a fee of £150. They will also incur some extra costs if they need to install security measures. I am sure that all would agree that that is important in itself but that they need to be proportionate and they should be minimal. That is our general approach.
	The question of Hazel Blears's letter was raised by the noble Baroness. As I understand it, Hazel Blears did not commit, in her correspondence, to a time by which we would have consulted on this issue. But it is clear that we need to approach this in a rational way and that we need to ensure that the consultation takes place in the right order. It would perhaps have been wrong to have pushed that too fast and too far before your Lordships have had a decent opportunity to consider the matter as well.
	I entirely understand the approach adopted by the noble Earl. We want to deal with this in good time. We want to have a proportionate approach to record keeping. We will be sensitive in the way in which we consult the trade on this and it is not our intention in any way to damage or undermine the legitimate use of air weapons. I hope that, having heard that and with our commitment to consultation, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before my noble friend responds, I would like to add that I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has given us as far as it goes. My concern is that although we have had a six-month consultation, I am not aware of whether the Government have had any negotiations during period or whether the issue has been put on hold. The Minister seemed to say that the right time for negotiations is afterwards. The difficulty is whether the Government's method is going to be better and whether it will properly take into account the needs of the trade when the regulations are formulated.
	I asked specifically whether the Government had taken into account the fact that not all air weapons have a specific number, so it is more difficult to keep to registration. I am also aware that there may be advantages for the trade—for example, if the Government were to adopt a pragmatic way of allowing registration by batches of sales. Could the Minister give us any idea of what the Home Office thinking has been so far and whether they have had any meetings with the trade in the past six months? Will he give the House some indication of the practical steps are being taken?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I omitted to answer the noble Baroness. We acknowledge that there could be some individual private sales but anyone selling by way of trade or business must register their place of business with the police. It is most unlikely that the police would accept a car boot sale as not posing a risk to public safety or to the peace.
	As to the question of what constitutes "by way of trade or business", this in itself is a matter of fact and degree for the courts to decide. It is not a new issue for them since they already have to make those sorts of judgments in respect of other firearms. With regard to private sales, eBay, for instance already has a policy of not listing for sale anything which is firearms related, including air weapons. We will be looking to mount a rigorous enforcement and education campaign when the Bill comes fully into force and we will urge people to hand in unwanted guns at that time.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: This is slightly related to the previous amendment but, from my point of view and with the knowledge that I have been given by the Gun Trade Association and the British Shooting Sports Council—I declared an interest on this the other day—this issue is very important to me.
	The proposed ban on sales other than those that are face-to-face is disproportionate to the problem that has been identified and it will be particularly irksome in rural areas. There is no evidence to suggest that sales by mail order pose a particular threat, and I invite the Government to delete this clause in its entirety.
	If the clause is to remain, provision should be made for an exemption where acceptable checks on the identity of the purchaser are available and are employed. Such systems already exist but may well need to be refined. If a rule-making power were created, acceptable systems could be devised by the trade in conjunction with the police and the Home Office. Rules could then be made to allow such a system to displace the requirement for face-to-face sales. I believe that such a system would be more proportionate to the problem.
	In commending the amendment to the Committee, I mention that, again, this clause was introduced in Committee in the other place with no prior consultation and was little discussed at that stage before being accepted into the draft Bill. Senior officials in the Gun Trade Association were expecting to meet Miss Blears on 9 May to put forward their arguments on airgun matters, but the Cabinet reshuffle put paid to that meeting. The GTA was hoping for some progress before the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, but that has not been possible.
	Clause 27 will make it an offence to transfer airguns by mail order or the internet. All transfers by way of trade or business will have to be face-to-face. There is to be no licensing of airguns per se, and therefore there will be no audit trail. The sale over the counter requires the seller merely to establish the age, which will be 18, of the prospective purchaser and an address. The seller has two problems with this type of sale. If the purchaser looks okay, the seller will properly sell without an in-depth check as to his bona fides. The second problem is that, face-to-face, he may be tempted to consider the commercial question—for example, if he pushes too hard in his desire to extract information from the purchaser, he may well lose the sale.
	None of that happens with a mail-order sale. With a mail-order sale, the prospective purchaser contacts the seller, who asks him for a credit card number and a billing address. Very few credit cards are available in the UK to under-18 year-olds. The seller then confirms these details through the use of the electoral roll on the internet, freely available at minimum cost. Incidentally, I do not know how something can be freely available at minimum cost—that sounds rather odd. If the checks prove valid, the seller dispatches the airgun to the address on the electoral roll. That is a copper-bottomed method of checking bona fides which has been in use by the industry for a very long while and could easily be written into rules.
	Needless to say, the airgun industry relies very heavily on mail-order and internet sales, and taking away this aspect of it will seriously, and totally unnecessarily, hamper the trade. There is no evidence to suggest that mail-order sales in the past have caused crimes to be committed by those who purchase using this method. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We support the Government's objective to ensure that the sale of air weapons is carried out in a responsible way, and that they are not sold to those who are under age.. The question is whether the Government have chosen the right approach. Again my noble friend is right to point out that another place had very little opportunity properly to examine these matters. The amendments were provided late before the Committee stage and were not properly scrutinised. On Report in another place they had very little opportunity to select a small number of issues that needed to be debated, so these matters were not properly attended to at that stage.
	The objective of my noble friend's amendment is to secure the responsible sale of air weapons without jeopardising responsible mail order business. It provides an interesting alternative to the Government's approach. It would make an exemption where acceptable checks on the identity of the purchaser are available and are used. It creates a rule-making power for the Secretary of State, so the Government can be assured that they will be able to put appropriate safeguards in place. My noble friend referred in particular to the issue of sales using credit cards. I understand from the trade that they are well aware of credit cards that may be available to those under the age of 18. There is a way of ensuring that those credit cards would not be accepted as a proper way of purchasing air weapons. Therefore, there is a way of carrying out mail order sales of weapons responsibly with checks to ensure young people cannot be supplied with them.
	My noble friend's proposal is interesting, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the Government feel that that practical approach should not be preferred. It would secure the support of the trade and preserve their businesses.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: I have given notice that I shall object to the Question that Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill. The effect of leaving out the clause would be to retain at 17 the age at which a person could purchase an air weapon. The effect of Clause 26 is to increase from 17 to 18 years the age from which a young person may purchase or hire air weapons or ammunition for air weapons. It also prohibits possession, and therefore use, of an air weapon by anyone under 18 years of age, subject to four limited exceptions.
	The Home Office, in its consultation paper of May 2004, indicated in part 3 that,
	"age limits for young people are complex and need simplifying".
	The Firearms Consultative Committee gave detailed consideration to some aspects of the problem in its 11th report, 2002, when it noted at paragraph 4.2 that,
	"there is general agreement that the current law relating to young people is complicated and inconsistent".
	However, it went on to warn that,
	"any changes to the present regime need to be carefully thought through and justified".
	If Clause 26 becomes law, differing restrictions on purchasing, accepting as a gift, possession on private property, possession in a public place and supervision requirements will apply to different classes of firearm at ages varying between 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21 years. That is quite ridiculous. The provisions relating to air guns will generally and perversely be more stringent than those relating to shotguns and Section 1 firearms.
	Much has been said about increases in the misuse of air weapons, but much of the supposed increase is the result of changes in statistical methods.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This clause is an important part of the whole package of measures that aims to tackle the problem of air weapon misuse and I have given statistics on the significance and the scale of the problem. The Government have already introduced measures to address air weapon misuse, which have been welcomed. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 made it an offence to carry an unloaded air weapon in public without reasonable excuse. That power was welcomed by the police as it allows them to act without having to wait for an air weapon to be actively misused. The same Act raised from 14 to 17 the minimum age for buying or possessing an air weapon. There was similar opposition when we made that important change. It has to be acknowledged that much air weapon misuse is attributed to young people, and this measure restricted their access to the guns.
	But despite these measures, air weapon misuse remains a serious problem and we believe that more must be done to tackle it. We make no apology for that. Clause 28 further restricts young people's access to air weapons by increasing from 17 to 18 the minimum age for buying, hiring or possessing one. This will further reduce the opportunity for irresponsible young people to obtain and misuse an air weapon. This clause will not stop responsible young people from using air weapons under controlled conditions. They will still be able to shoot at approved clubs, under adult supervision or, if they are 14 or over, on private premises with the occupier's consent.
	Air weapon misuse is a considerable problem. It upsets the lives of many people. It is vitally important that we do all we can to safeguard people. We believe that this clause will make a useful contribution to reducing the level of misuse. We do not believe that it is perverse for airgun age limits to be higher than those for other weapons that are controlled through certification. On the contrary, it could be argued that the lack of a certificate necessitates a higher age limit. We are attempting to achieve a degree of harmonisation on age limits, but I do accept that the harmonisation is not perfect. This clause is important. I understand the noble Earl's objection to it, but we think that we have the policy right, that it is going in the right direction and that this will help to raise the threshold at which gun misuse becomes a problem.

Earl Peel: I accept that this clause cannot be described as draconian. It is certainly not as contentious as some other Clause 28s I can think of in past legislation. I listened carefully to what the Minister said before I decided to intervene. Above all, I was looking for evidence to substantiate that this clause had some credence. I am sure everyone would agree that legislation should be based on need and evidence, not on the simple notion that it might help to solve a problem or so that it looks as if the Government are going something. From the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend, I have to say that I came to the conclusion that that is what is happening. It seems faintly bizarre that the then Minister Hazel Blears stated in the Standing Committee on the Bill in the Commons:
	"We do not say that increasing the age from 17 to 18 will of itself solve the problem,".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 215.]
	Surely, that is another example of the lack of evidence. The Government have not been able to acquire the evidence to substantiate the need for this clause.
	Furthermore, I think I am right in saying that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 raised the age at which a person could buy an airgun to 17 and the effects of that are still being monitored. That makes the provisions in the Bill premature. I was also amazed to read in the briefing that I received that in response to various Questions for Written Answer put down by my noble friends Lord Brougham and Vaux and Lord Glenarthur, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, admitted that there was no way of establishing on a centralised basis the difference in airgun offences committed by 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds and that there are no plans to collect data on the age of offenders. One can conclude only that the Government have no justification for introducing Clause 28.
	Importantly, the Government have several times made a firm commitment not to attack the sport of shooting. I suggest, in the absence of hard unequivocal data, that Clause 28 does just that. I can reach no other conclusion. I know how my noble friend and those in the firearms world have worked with the police and the Home Office, and I am quite convinced that had the Government produced statistics that showed conclusively that 17 year-olds were abusing their rights, my noble friend and all those with whom he works would have backed legislation to ensure that these abuses were removed. The point is that the Government do not have the evidence, and I hope most sincerely that the Minister can make a slightly better case for the clause.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, who may have been more helpful than he imagined, even beyond the broad confines of Rannoch Moor. I may bring forward amendments at a later stage of the Bill which he may find helpful, particularly as regards the treatment of bullets, silencers and other completely inert objects but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This group contains government amendments and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I shall try to cover both sets.
	Amendment No. 126 is a small but important amendment which will benefit private museums and galleries. I believe that for that reason it will be broadly welcomed.
	The Government believe that the ban on manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms is necessary to curb the alarming level of imitations used in crime. But we do not want to interfere unduly with legitimate activities where there is no alternative to using realistic imitations. For that reason, the Bill includes a range of exceptions and defences.
	One such defence relates to museums and galleries, which sometimes use realistic imitations in place of rare and expensive real guns. The defence for museums is drafted along the same lines as the provisions relating to offensive weapons in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: it applies only to museums that do not distribute their profits; in other words, to public museums. We have received representations, on behalf of private museums open to the public as tourist attractions, to the effect that this requirement is unnecessarily restrictive. Our overriding concern is, of course, public safety. We therefore want to ensure that the defence is available only to bona fide museums. This is already achieved elsewhere in the clause and, on reflection, we agree that the requirement not to distribute profits is unnecessary. We are content to apply the defence to all bona fide museums, public and private.
	Amendment No. 127 provides another defence against the new offence of manufacturing, importing, selling or modifying realistic imitation firearms. The proposed defence would apply to people participating in organised airsoft games. This is an activity in which battle scenarios are acted out, using realistic imitation guns. The Government have received many representations for a defence or exemption for airsoft activities. We met a delegation of representatives from the airsoft sector. Their case is that, for them, using realistic guns is an important part of the "airsoft experience." They have proposed a system of self-regulation, as a basis for exempting their activities from the ban. The Government have carefully considered the arguments put forward by the airsofters, but we see no compelling reason why they should not use non-realistic imitations for their activities. Airsofters will be able to take advantage of provisions in Clause 34, which will allow imitation firearms to be sold if their size, shape or principal colour is unrealistic. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment on that point.
	However, government Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B will be of some assistance to the airsoft industry, as well as to users of imitation firearms more generally. In addition to airsofters, there will be a demand for non-realistic imitations from people such as dog trainers and race starters. We understand that the great majority of guns used in airsoft are made in Pacific Rim countries, and it is highly unlikely that manufacturers there will be prepared to modify their products to look non-realistic. Amendments Nos. 127A and 127B therefore provide a defence for business to import realistic imitation firearms solely for the purpose of modifying them to make them non-realistic. This will ensure that non-realistic imitations will be available to all those who have a real need for them.
	We have already demonstrated our attempts to be proportionate in what is covered by the provisions in the Bill on realistic imitation firearms. In particular, we have been clear that we do not wish to hinder historical re-enactment activities. To that end we broadened the scope of the defence in Clause 33 and defined "realistic imitations" in such a way as to exclude imitations of antique firearms. In case there are further difficulties, we have retained a power to make regulations.
	Amendment No. 127C seeks to extend the meaning of "historical re-enactment" to include any presentation or other event at which people use blank-firing realistic imitation firearms. Arguably this goes wider than intended, because there is no link to past events or conduct. However, even if it is not defective in this respect, such an amendment seems unnecessary. Clause 33 does not differentiate between realistic imitation firearms which are totally inert and those which fire blanks; they are all the same. It does not therefore matter whether an historical re-enactment is staged using inert realistic imitations or blank-firing ones. If it is organised and held by persons specified or described in regulations made under subsection (2)(e), they will still be able to obtain the same type of imitations they currently use. For those reasons, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. I think I have covered all the amendments covered in this group and beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I welcome government Amendment No. 126, because it addresses the concern I raised at Second Reading regarding museums and galleries. The Minister referred to Amendment No. 127, on airsoft, and Amendment 127C, which asks about the impact of the Bill on historical re-enactors. I shall deal with historical re-enactments first because I can be briefer on that. I understood from what the Minister said that, in a sense, it does not matter what those organising historical re-enactments fire, provided they fall within the definitions of those persons in the clause. They will not necessarily contravene the law if they are using blank-firing realistic imitation weapons. The Minister may well have given me the assurance that I need.
	Last week I explained my reasons for tabling this amendment to the head of the Bill team. The Minister attacked the drafting of the amendment, but this was only a tool, not an end in itself. It was a probing amendment because I had received a letter of concern from Mr Owen David Powell, secretary of the Great War Society. The society fulfils an important educational role in helping to preserve a piece of this country's history and heritage. It honours the memory of the British soldiers of the Great War. It also does a lot of work raising money for the Royal British Legion. There is urgency about this inquiry because this summer the society is due to play a major part in the ninetieth anniversary commemoration of the battle of the Somme. It has planned this in conjunction with the French Tourist Board and has approval for its activities from French local government officials. Again, with this event it will be raising money for the Royal British Legion. They will be followed by British Forces TV. It is a big, prestigious and serious event.
	The society welcomed the Government's decision to drop deactivated firearms from the scope of the Bill, and the inclusion of a specific defence, in Clause 33, for the use of realistic imitation firearms in historical re-enactments. Just one area of concern remains. I shall ask about it very clearly, because the Government's answer may have given the assurance, but in rather occluded language. The society is concerned that the legal use of blank-firing realistic imitations may still be in question once the Bill reaches the statute book. In that case it would cause it a problem because it owns a blank-firing imitation Lewis gun, for use in demonstrating infantry fire and movement tactics for the period at public displays. The society will take the gun abroad this summer as part of the display at the Somme. Having taken it to France, the society does not want to then be in the position of not being allowed to bring it back into this country because it is illegal. All I want is an assurance that it will not be contravening the terms of this new Act—as it will be by the Summer Recess, I imagine—once it has taken the Lewis gun out of the country and then wants to bring it back in again. They are very law-abiding people.
	It may seem odd to think that that was the shorter part of the explanation; the longer part concerns airsoft. I was very content that both my amendments were grouped with the government amendments. It made sense to do so, but it means that I need to refer at some length to the question of what is likely to happen to those who take part in the sport of airsoft. The Minister has said that he rejects my amendment and that the Government are looking at the issue of those who take part in airsoft activities, but there is no compelling reason for them to use realistic imitations.
	I think it is right that I put on record the background of why I tabled the amendment and why the Association of British Airsoft has a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 has as its objective to ensure that those who engage in airsoft activities can continue to do so in their current form. It would give them a defence to the offence of using a realistic imitation firearm. It would only enable them to continue their sport following the regulations set down by the Secretary of State. I am being reasonable; the Government could thereby ensure that the sport was only carried out under regulated and safe conditions and ensure that those weapons could not be available to those who wanted to use them for illegal purposes. I am very grateful to the Association of British Airsoft for its careful briefing on these matters. I appreciate that the amendments passed on these matters in another place may not have quite the beneficial effect that the Government intended, and that the sport of airsoft is under threat as a result.
	Airsofters have said to me that it is vital in skirmishing that they should be able to use realistic imitation weapons, and that is where there is a mismatch between them and the Government. There has been a degree of misunderstanding on this point by the then-Minister Hazel Blears. She continued to hold discussions with airsofters until the reshuffle, in what I feel was intended by her to be a constructive way. Her letter following a meeting on 7 February reveals the basis of this misunderstanding:
	"While I do accept that realism is an important aspect of airsoft activities, having carefully considered the representations which you made, together with those made to me direct by individual players, I have to say I am not persuaded that the tactical and other skills you referred to cannot be developed using imitation firearms that are distinguishable from the real thing".
	It is not tactics and skills that are the core reasons for airsofters' need for the continued purchase of realistic imitations; it is the realism of the whole experience.
	Since the Minister said that he does not think that is a compelling argument, I ought to put on record briefly what airsoft comprises. I am aware that many noble Lords will not yet have been briefed on the sport. In layman's terms, airsoft skirmishing is an action game based on military simulation. Airsoft is much more than a simple game of tag, as paintball tends to be. I am advised that it is an all-encompassing experience, which constantly evolves and changes. In that respect, it is much more akin to the film industry or re-enactment than either to paintball or laser tag. The experience of creating an alternative reality is no different from that of the film industry or re-enactment; both use special effects and props to entertain their audience. It would be unfeasible and ridiculous to suggest that the film industry or re-enactors should give up replicas that are realistic, and the Government are not asking them to do so. But they are asking airsoft skirmishers to do just that and give up their realistic imitations.
	The Association of British Airsoft showed me photographs of skirmishing with realistic imitation weapons, and photographs in a mock-up situation with the brightly coloured weapons that would be allowed under the legislation. Instead of standing with a realistic imitation firearm, you would have a great big piece of yellow or orange, perhaps see-through, plastic; it does make the whole sport look ridiculous. To say that there is any way that one would be taking part in an experience would become laughable. To create the illusion and the experience, airsofters need the props that are fit for the job; bright yellow guns are not fit for the job.
	Exemptions have been given to the film industry and to re-enactors, and I am seeking a similar exemption for airsofters. I heard the very firm response by the Minister that there was no compelling argument. I certainly am not giving up on this matter, as I feel there is a reasonable argument. I do not seek to divide the House today, because I feel that it may be possible to benefit from further discussions before Report stage, if the Government are prepared to continue with those discussions. I hope that the Minister is prepared to say today that he will look kindly on saying to the Home Office that we should have some kind of discussion, both on a political level and with the Association of British Airsoft, before Report stage.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: Amendment No. 128 deals with antiques and the definition of dates for antiques. Clause 34 seeks to define the term "real firearm" to include only modern firearms and Clause 34(8) defines the term "modern firearm" as,
	"any firearm other than one the appearance of which would tend to identify it as having a design and mechanism of a sort first dating from before the year 1870".
	Effectively, this includes as a modern firearm anything designed after 1 January 1870. If 1870 was an inclusive date, the reference would be "designed in or before".
	For the purposes of clarifying what might be a realistic imitation firearm, that dateline may be appropriate, but the definition creates a very real danger of imposing a definition on the term "antique firearm" as used in Section 58(2) of the 1968 Act. Whatever the intentions of the Government or of Parliament, it seems highly likely that the courts, in seeking to define the term "antique firearm" in a future case, will be referred to this definition and are likely to look at the term "modern firearm" as defining the difference between antique firearm and modern firearm.
	The courts will be supported in that view by the comments made by the Minister in another place:
	is the correct cut-off point between what is considered a modern firearm and what is considered an antique firearm".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 260.]
	Appellate courts in England have long been regarded as willing to stand the English language on its head in seeking interpretations that strengthen the law on firearms. One might cite Cafferata v Wilson in 1936, et al, which the Scottish Court refused to follow in a detailed and cogent argument in Kelley v Mackinnon 1982 on the grounds that the English courts' interpretation of the law was "obviously wrong" and,
	"sought to ascribe to Parliament the intention that the words of these provisions should mean not only what they say but also the opposite of what they say".
	There are many other examples.
	At present, the term "antique firearm" has been interpreted by the courts to include many firearms made long after 1869 and Home Office guidance makes it clear that a large array of later firearms should be considered to be antique. The matter was considered by the Home Office in its consultation paper Controls on Firearms of May 2004 at page 14:
	"Nothing in the Firearms Acts applies to any 'antique firearm' that is held as 'a curiosity or ornament'. 'Antique' is not defined in law but the Home Office provides published guidance on what might constitute an antique gun (also known as the 'obsolete calibre' list). This effectively covers those firearms which do not use readily available ammunition. Many antique guns are not particularly attractive to criminals and have not so far featured prominently in crime. Further controls on antiques would only be likely to penalise people with a genuine interest in collecting antique guns. We do not therefore believe that regulatory changes are necessary".
	In its response to the 2004 consultation, the gun trade and many other organisations supported that view and until the day on which Clause 35(8) was tabled, that had been considered to be the current policy of the Home Office. The amendment seems to reverse that policy without a word of warning. The number of antique firearms in circulation that fall between the date of 1870 and the effective coverage of Home Office guidance or the current state of the law cannot be accurately stated, but it runs into many hundreds of thousands, with a value of many millions of pounds. All these have been acquired or possessed on the assurance by the Home Office that their possession is legal. A change in the law will reduce the value of these guns by 40 to 50 per cent and the market will rapidly collapse. Trade in this class of antiques will be limited to the export trade, museums and a very few collectors who are exempt. Existing collections or individual weapons will lose much of their value and their owners are likely to seek compensation.
	There is a general consensus, obviously shared by the Home Office as late as May 2004, that such antique firearms pose no significant hazard to public safety and that any such legislation would harm only the law abiding. It may be argued that the fact that the definition of "modern firearm" is used in a restricted context in this Bill only means that it can not be applied more widely. If that is the case, there is no reason not to make that clear in the Bill. This amendment seeks only clarity of interpretation and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Knife crime in this country is on the increase. Recent reports suggest that in some parts of the country it has risen by as much as 90 per cent in two years. Perhaps the most worrying trend is the increase in the carriage and use of knives by young people. There seems to be a so-called "culture of the blade" and I am sure we all agree that something more needs to be done. Terror is the only word that can sufficiently describe what must be experienced by a victim of crime when someone in the street draws a knife on them. But those that carry knives believe that somehow it is a brave thing to do or that it enhances their respect among their peers.
	This week, the Government said that they will launch a national amnesty on sharp-bladed weapons, but a senior police adviser has said that the measure will not reduce crime levels. Detective Inspector Keith Perkin, who works on the knife crime advisory team of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
	"We could have a message that a knife amnesty will reduce knife crime, but you and I and any members of the public know that is not going to happen. A knife amnesty per se will not reduce knife crime. It is a marketing tactic and it raises awareness".
	My view is that if something assists in raising awareness and reduces knife crime, that in itself must be supported, as a knife amnesty should be. I hope that it works effectively but, as the police officer recognises, it is only one part of the overall attack that there has to be on knife crime.
	It is important that we explore all the possibilities open to us and employ as wide a range of measures as possible to reduce knife crime. That was certainly brought home to me when I looked again over my speaking notes yesterday. I had fresh in my mind all the stories that we heard at the weekend about the death of Kiyan Prince last week. It was a tragedy for him and his family. It was deeply shocking, and it is something that should not be allowed to happen in our society.
	It is right that we should work together to send a strong signal to those parts of society that think that carrying a knife or blade in a street is somehow acceptable. We should show that such behaviour is not tolerated and that, if caught and found guilty, the individual will face very severe consequences. My amendment would try to do just that. It would increase the maximum sentence for the offence of having an article with a blade or point in a public place from two to five years. Not only would that act as a deterrent to those who might consider carrying a knife in a public place but it would, I hope, also send a message to victims of crime that Parliament has expressed its will that such an offence should be treated with the utmost gravity.
	The need for such an amendment becomes all the more apparent when one considers the sentencing powers of the courts in relation to a similar offence—possession of an offensive weapon under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. This offence carries a maximum penalty of four years. Given the rise in knife crime, surely the time has come to consider whether the offence of carrying a bladed article merits a greater sentence than that available under the 1953 Act.
	My amendment is put forward in the constructive spirit of trying to find a variety of ways to tackle knife crime. If the Minister says that it is poorly drafted or that perhaps five years is not the right maximum sentence, I should certainly be prepared to discuss that. But I hope that I shall hear from the Government that they are prepared to consider this matter again. I beg to move.

Lord Geddes: I must point out to the Committee at this early stage that, in view of the groupings, if Amendment No. 133 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 133A; and if Amendment No. 133B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I assure the Deputy Chairman of Committees that I will not put him to any difficulty because I will not press my amendments when we get to the appropriate stage. Of course, I do welcome government Amendment No. 132A, which puts the matter clearly that somebody cannot be forced to take part in carrying out searches. The Minister referred to the main thrust of these government amendments, which is that when a search takes place, the second person there should be someone with a duty of care—a member of staff. Indeed, I agree entirely that that was the matter put forward by my honourable friend Humfrey Malins in another place. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, said, "We'll take it away and we'll think about it". I then raised it at Second Reading, and the problem I then had was the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. When she responded to matters put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on a different point on searches, she appeared to say that another adult will be present, but she did not say that it had to be another member of staff. She said:
	"I am sure the noble Lord does not seek to make a distinction between a teaching assistant and a teacher or some other responsible adult".—[Official Report, 29/3/06; col. 848.]
	Well, of course, I did. That was exactly the point I sought to make and the point I had thought that Hazel Blears had taken on board. I now find, thank goodness, that that is exactly what Hazel Blears had intended. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was seeking to be helpful, when in fact she said something that she did not mean to say at Second Reading. The next day, I busily tabled a raft of amendments, to which the Deputy Chairman of Committees had to refer and then call out. That was on 29 March. I was very relieved last week to see that the Government had indeed tabled their own. With regard to the searches, that is fine. But I do have other queries, raised by my amendments.
	First, what if a member of staff is invited to take part in a search, and does so, and then they find a bladed weapon, for example, and the person being searched is not some compliant young person, who says, "Oh, yes, Mr Smith. Don't worry. Here you are. This is where I carry my knife. Here it is," and then hands it over by the handle? What if this person carries the knife because they are not exactly the nicest person on God's Earth? What if, when they are searched, they then use it on the member of staff? Have the Government been in discussions with the unions that represent teachers about what happens then, from the point of view perhaps of compensation that might be needed for the injury caused to the teacher? I wonder whether the school must now carry out its own insurance in these matters—I simply do not know how it will work. I wonder what the Government have done to find out how it will work in the real world. I agree with the Government that it is right that these searches should be possible, that they should take place, but I do worry about what might happen to some teachers when they carry this out. However good the guidelines are, however carefully the searches are carried out, there could be some unfortunate results.
	I tabled some other amendments in the group, including Amendments Nos. 135, 140 and 145, which raise another aspect of the power to search students at attendance centres. I think it is important that searches should be carried out only where strictly necessary. Subsection (1) of the Government's revisions appears to try to insure that that restriction applies. It means that a search should take place only where a member of staff has reasonable grounds for believing a student has a weapon on him or in his possessions. That is fine. I agree entirely with what the Government is trying to do there.
	I find subsection (10), however, rather confusing. It appears to widen staff's power of search to enable them to search generally, rather than having a specific reason, a specific person, or a specific occasion. This would mean that they could just say, "Right, we'll have searches every Monday, at 10 am, for the next year". I would not see that as a very helpful way forward. My amendment simply removes one part of subsection (10), which seems to me to be replicating the power given in the remainder of the subsection. What does, "Generally in relation to searches," in the subsection mean? What will be lost if that were removed? Surely if the staff can search only if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that weapons are being carried, that power to search should be limited to a search of a particular person, or persons, on one occasion.
	If there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that students routinely carry weapons, on a particular occasion—let us say they are going away to an away football match—I would imagine that that power to search would be conferred by the phrase, "A particular description of such searches". Do the Government really intend that schools should be able to have a policy to routinely search everybody, or a particular class—a group of people—when they enter the institution?
	Amendments Nos. 136 and 141 address subsection (3), which provides that a search can only be carried out if the person making that search is either the head teacher of a school, or is a person who has been authorised by the head teacher to do so. My understanding of what the Minister said is that if the government amendments are agreed to—I do not need to worry that—and if the head teacher is absent, there would be nobody there to authorise a search. What happens if the head teacher is absent from the school, for professional or personal reasons, and an authorisation for a search that is taking place is needed? How is the authorisation of the search given? Does the definition of head teacher cover a deputy head holding a permanent appointment? Could it cover a person who is acting as a head teacher's deputy, even though they do not have a permanent appointment, and how will that work? I realise that there may be an answer in the provisions of the Education Act 1996. If so, I would be grateful to be pointed towards it, as I could not find it.
	Finally, my Amendments Nos. 137, 142 and 146 relate to guidelines. Of course the Government said that there will be guidelines, but I had a simple, straightforward reason for tabling the amendments, although not the usual one used by the Opposition. I wanted ask about the training that the Government expect schools will put in place to ensure that searches are carried out appropriately.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I start with a positive sentiment: that we have achieved a degree of consensus across the Committee on this issue and I appreciate the careful thought and consideration that the noble Baroness has given in speaking to some of her amendments, which do not replicate ours. I am grateful to her for the way in which she has done that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Scotland at Second Reading. We believe that her comments were consistent with the amendments tabled. We do not seek to distinguish between a teacher and some other responsible adult employed by the school, which was implicit in what she said. As regards exclusion, we do not want a person to be able to conduct or to be present at a search merely because they are 18 or over, such as a visitor on the premises or even a passer by. We want to ensure that we exclude in particular that class of person. The provision relates to the staff in schools; namely, teachers and other responsible adult employees such as teaching assistants. With something as tricky as this, we have had to undertake careful consultation with school staff unions. That took place at length and largely through working groups such as the school security working group and the working agreement management groups.
	With regard to some of the noble Baroness's other amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 135, 141 and 145, if we removed the power to authorise staff generally to search, leaving only a power to authorise a particular search or a description of searches, we think that it might make it harder for staff to search without checking at the time whether they were authorised. The effect of such a limitation is modified for schools and FE institutions by opposition Amendments Nos. 136 and 141. They provide for a deputy to authorise if the head teacher or principal is away. But, critically, the amendments omit to provide for a deputy in attendance centres. We are therefore troubled by those amendments.
	I should make it plain to the Committee that head teachers can authorise staff in general to search, so to define heads further we do not believe is entirely necessary. It would only be necessary if each authorisation were for one specific search. So there is a complexity to be thought through there.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments, but we do not believe that they add greater clarification to the way in which we have phrased our amendments. We are also grateful for the way in which the debate has been conducted through the Commons and at Second Reading here. That has given us the opportunity to refine some of our thinking on the issue and we accept that it is not easy to resolve. We need to get the level of responsibility as properly defined as we can.
	I hope that that answers some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. If not, I am happy to have further discussions with her outside the confines of the Committee.

Lord Marlesford: A few minutes ago, we were discussing an amendment tabled by the Government to prevent people aged between 16 and 18 buying kitchen knives, chisels and other such things. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, rightly described it as a futile proposal. We hope that we will come back to it later on. My amendment is intended to widen the powers of the police to intercept illegal guns in public places before they can be used. It is a wholly practical amendment, and I make no apology for the fact that I moved the same amendment in March 2002, when I put forward the need to deal with growing gun crime in the United Kingdom. At that time, the Government did not accept my amendment. They said that there were already powers under the Terrorism Act to intercept weapons—of course, I was not talking about the Terrorism Act—and that this was not something that had been thought of in the Home Office and was not the sort of thing they wanted to do.
	Things have changed a lot in the past four years, and they have changed for the worse. Four years ago, I referred to New York where 90,000 guns had been seized from the streets between 1995 and 2002. Between 1995 and 2005, murder in New York fell by 54 per cent, from 1,181 people murdered to 540 last year. Robbery has fallen by 59 per cent, from 60,000 robberies to 24,000 robberies. New York is by no means perfect, but it is a much safer place than it was and the authorities in New York and in other cities in the United States are focusing on how they can reduce gun crime.
	Things are very different in the UK. From 1995 to 2004–05, offences involving firearms rose from 13,000 to 23,000—an increase of 77 per cent. The public's perception is that it is much worse than that, and with that goes public fear. Many people in some of our inner cities who read in the press accounts of gun crime or hear about it are very worried. Very often, it is criminals shooting at criminals, but that does not make them any easier or any happier. Public outrage at the increase in gun culture has increased, and there is growing demand for action.
	Gun culture when imported into this country from overseas is wholly unacceptable, but it is growing. It must be stopped, and I believe the growth, at least, can be stopped. My proposal is simple. It is that the police should have full powers, as and when they think it appropriate, to use non-invasive methods—that is, metal detectors that will detect any gun because virtually every gun is made of metal—anywhere they wish. They can intercept the guns. It is easy to do, and it is absurd that they do not have the power to do so.
	When we discussed this four years ago, I found it a little depressing that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, while welcoming the idea, said the following, which I hope is no longer the case:
	"The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities. That is linked to perhaps an absence of police confidence at present in their abilities to carry out stop and search in certain circumstances in certain areas".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 699.]
	I hope that that has changed. I believe that the growth of gun crime means that there is now much more community support for this in the inner cities among the sort of people who live among the criminals who commit the crimes. They may find it difficult to denounce people or to report them, but I do not believe that they would find it in the least bit offensive, any more than any of us would, to be stopped in any street or place and frisked with a metal detector to see whether we carrying a gun. The detection system would also pick up knives, which would be an added bonus, but that is not the object of the exercise. The object of the exercise is that when the police constable—or police officer of whatever rank is regarded as appropriate—has reason to believe that there are guns in the area, the police can mount an operation to search for them.
	Recently in London, I think under Operation Trident, a lot of progress has been made in checking people for knives at Underground stations. All I am asking is that the Bill should give the police wide powers that they could use at their discretion to use modern methods to intercept guns that may be being carried illegally—they almost certainly are being carried illegally—in public places. Given the changes that have taken place, I hope that four years after the Government pooh-poohed my idea and rejected it I shall get a more positive reaction. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he moved his amendment back in 2002. I dealt with it at some length and with care and consideration. I think I congratulated him at the time on sparking what I said was an encouraging debate on this issue, to which I pay tribute to him. With his trademark consistency and persistence, he has done exactly the same again. It is of value to have a debate on these matters at reasonable intervals. I know that the noble Baroness has been involved in similar debates, too.
	I should say to the noble Lord that Ministers are often criticised for proposing measures designed to suggest that we are on the case with a particular problem rather than to have any real effect. If we were introducing this package in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, that would probably be one of the allegations made against us. I suspect that the other allegation that would be made against us would be that we need to have more proportionate and sensitive approaches to dealing with what I think we all recognise is a very real problem indeed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said that the Government reach for yet another measure with which to attack legal holders of firearms whenever there is an outrage involving a gun. That is not our approach. I suppose what Governments have historically tried to do in this field is increasingly to narrow down the scope for the migration of firearms from people who hold them for entirely legitimate purposes to those who hold them for criminal purposes that can be highly dangerous and even fatal. We are part of a general trend in government for being determined to deal with the issue as precisely as we can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, started his comments by saying in essence that full powers are not available to us. We think that they are. When we debated this last, I think I gave a fairly comprehensive list of statutory references that set out how fully we thought we were already covered for the sorts of situations to which the noble Lord referred.
	Section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968 already provides police constables with a wide range of enforcement powers that tackle precisely the issue which the noble Lord raised again this evening. Police constables can require ammunition for a firearm to be handed over for examination, and can search a person and detain them for that purpose. Where a vehicle is involved, it may be searched and the person driving or in control of it can be required to stop. Furthermore, a constable may enter any place for the purpose of exercising these powers. All these things relate to firearms and firearms legislation.
	We have a very strong commitment to tackling gun crime, and we have introduced a number of measures, and not only in this Bill—we have been debating some of those measures this afternoon and this evening—which are designed to strengthen existing legislation. We are also committed to ensuring that the police have sufficient and proportionate powers to help make communities safe, and we believe that the existing legislative framework meets exactly those objectives in the most appropriate way. If that full range of powers were not available to us, this is the precisely the point at which the law enforcement agencies would be banging on our door and telling us that we had to have a certain additional measure and to put in place wide-ranging and, some might say, draconian powers for sealing off whole areas and conducting the sorts of searches which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, envisages in his proposed additions following Clause 42.
	We reject the amendment only because we think the powers are in place. This issue has been aired before in your Lordships' House. If those powers were not there and freely available to the police and other law enforcement agencies, we would fairly know about it, and I think the Association of Chief Police Officers would be campaigning volubly for the sorts of powers which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is concerned to introduce.
	On the success or otherwise of the Government's strategy, one should never be complacent about these things, but we believe that our approach, our policy and the activities of law enforcement agencies have contributed to a 3 per cent reduction in firearms offences overall in the 12 months to December 2005 compared with the previous 12 months. Happily, there has also been a 30 per cent reduction in fatalities caused by firearms. We think it more appropriate to deal with illegal firearms through intelligence-led operations, which are perhaps rather more successful than putting in place rather wide-sweeping and draconian measures such as sealing off an area, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred. Last year's Operation Bembridge, for example, resulted in the arrest of more than 200 people who had purchased firearms via the internet. Of course we will continue to use stop and search where it is right, proper, sensible and proportionate on the street and elsewhere to tackle problems associated with firearms.
	I certainly understand and support the spirit in which the noble Lord has moved his amendment, but I cannot support the amendment itself. Let us face it; the noble Lord, Lord Condon, is one of this country's most experienced former police officers. In the last debate on this issue, he said that although he understood the spirit of the amendment and accepted that it was well put, and although the debate had quite rightly illustrated concerns about gun crime, he believed that,
	"it is the view of the police service that there is an adequate menu of powers in relation to gun crime. Powers are not the real concern. The police are concerned that there may not be strong and sufficient partnerships within communities for condemnation of gun crime to lead to a willingness to give evidence against known carriers of guns within communities".—[Official Report, 12/3/02; col. 699.]
	Giving the police extra powers will not tackle that problem. We have to establish an anti-gun, anti-weapon culture in those communities. In part, that is what this Bill is about; in part, it is what the various campaigns, such as Operation Trident, are about; and, in part, it is an aspect of the targeted approach that we have seen the police adopt over the past few years in order to tackle this problem head on. We need clearly to deal with the problem at source in terms of the original supply of firearms.
	I understand the noble Lord's concern. I congratulate him on his persistence. However, it is misplaced because we have the powers that we require. As I have explained to the Committee, what the noble Lord, Lord Condon—who, one can fairly say, is close to being an expert on these matters, given the length of his service in the police and his extensive knowledge of the issue—said is probably of far greater benefit in this debate than anything that I can add.
	Lord Monson: The Minister said at the outset that the Government's policy was based on preventing guns migrating from legal holders into the hands of those who want to use them for crime. But does he agree that the overwhelming majority of gun crime is carried out with guns that were never legal in the first place in this country, and which have been smuggled in from the Continent or further afield?
	Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly agree with that. But my reference was in response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. He thought that the legitimate gun-owning community in this country felt picked on because of the way in which government legislation is put forward. But that is not the case. We recognise that legitimate holders of firearms and the certificates that go with most of them act entirely responsibly most of the time. But there is an element of migration. I am sure that the noble Earl will accept that that is the case in some circumstances.
	Lord Thomas of Gresford: The considerable merit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that it is a very simple statement of powers. I have no doubt that the powers exist, but they are to be extracted from a number of legislative instruments. If the Government want to give a message—they are always giving a message about gun crime—the noble Lord's amendment gives that message straight away.
	I agree that it is a question of introducing an anti-gun strategy and culture into this country. I was recently in Trinidad, where gun crime is in a horrendous state. There is a population of about 1.5 million, and in the first three months of this year there had been 112 homicides, mostly shootings. I am sure that that is many more homicides by gun than we have in the whole of this country of 50 or 60 million people in a year. It is serious. As for those who carry guns legally in Trinidad, the Royal Gaol in Port of Spain is the only gaol that I have ever been in where I have been asked at the gate, "Can you hand over your gun please, sir?", which gives an idea of how guns are regularly carried.
	We must get away from a gun culture which permits the legal carrying of guns by people in the street, and make sure that that degree of gun crime does not occur in this country.
	Lord Marlesford: I am grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken and my noble friends for their support. The Home Office, of course, has not moved a jot. The Government say "We already have all these powers". As the noble Lord has just said, there may be a lot of powers that can be dug out to sustain particular situations, but that does not make it easy for the police and enable them to act as and when they want to. There is a certain inconsistency in saying that we have these powers and then saying, "Lord Marlesford's proposals are Draconian and we have to deal with these things proportionately and sensitively".
	Frankly, I believe that the people of this country would welcome the simple statement which I propose be put on the statute book. It would make the police fully aware that they have powers as and when they need them to seal off areas and to search for guns using non-intrusive metal detectors. It would make it extremely risky for people to carry guns illegally. The chances are that the guns would be intercepted before they could be used. Many would not therefore be used or carried. I believe that my proposal is necessary and effective. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Chidgey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on securing this debate and raising this important and complex issue. It is important because, without developing social cohesion across the EU, there is a great danger of an even wider divide between the haves and have nots and of creating an excluded underclass across Europe. It is complex because of the widening and deepening diversity in the EU of nations, cultures, races, religions, creeds, customs and codes, as the enlargement of EU rolls forward.
	In that context, I shall raise three aspects for the Minister to consider. First, what do the Government consider to be the concepts that define social cohesion, or in fact social exclusion, in the EU which NGOs might address? Secondly, what information do the Government have currently or intend to collect on, for example, the status, composition and policy-making process of NGOs, in the context of programmes to strengthen civil society, address social exclusion and build social cohesion? Thirdly, have the Government defined how they believe NGOs can best be structured, operated and resourced to make a significant impact toward strengthening social cohesion in the EU?
	On social cohesion, your Lordships will be aware that a great deal of research has been done at the behest of the EU Commission over the years. In this regard, I make reference to the work of Atkinson and Davoudi published in the Journal of Common Market Studies in September 2000. They reported that in Commission documents throughout the 1990s, frequent reference was made to the decline in social cohesion and social solidarity, and to the need to reintegrate the socially excluded into mainstream society. However, the definition of "social exclusion" is elusive. There is a tendency to use poverty as a proxy for social exclusion, which overlooks the multidimensional nature of exclusion, particularly the importance of social and cultural relations.
	The EU Commission first identified the growth of new forms of poverty and marginalisation towards the end of the 1970s. They emerged first from rising unemployment and labour insecurity; they persisted or developed as a result of fundamental economic, technological and social changes, as the industrial society within Europe evolved. For example, unemployment in the EU rose from 14 million in 1992, to some 16.5 million by 1998. Of these about half—some 5 per cent of the working population—were long-term unemployed. The unemployment rate for young people, to which the noble Earl referred—those under 25—was more than 20 per cent. It appears that this phase of social exclusion became the justification for the EU Commission developing a social policy dimension. This resulted in a welfare regime closely associated with the European social model, which in turn was strongly linked to the notion of a social market economy.
	However, in 1994, in evidence to the Select Committee in this House investigating the Commission's poverty programme, a witness from Directorate E of DGV argued that, while combating social exclusion,
	"is implicitly and explicitly mentioned in the Maastricht Treaty and reflected the new objectives of the structural funds . . . the primary responsibility to combat social exclusion rests with the national governments of the Member States and their regional and local authorities".
	The terms "social exclusion" and "social cohesion" are widely used throughout the EU member states, but their meaning has been subject to a wide variety of interpretations. In the French case, for example, social solidarity lies at the core of the debate. Here in the United Kingdom, however, the Prime Minister argued in 1999, on page 23 of Opportunity for All, that social exclusion is,
	"a shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime . . . bad health and family breakdown".
	It has been argued that in France, social exclusion is perceived as fundamental to social and economic well-being, whereas economic performance takes priority in Britain over social cohesion. When the Minister is considering where and how NGOs can best support social cohesion in the EU, it would be helpful if he could confirm which concept of social exclusion and cohesion the Government are aiming to address.
	In that context, NGOs and the civil society framework within which they function have risen up the European political agenda over the last decade or so. The increased role of civil society in governance at the EU level and the adoption of explicitly European, rather than purely national, dimensions has been part of the response to the "democratic deficit". In a contribution to that same journal, the Journal of Common Market Studies—but this time in November 2001—Professor Alex Warleigh argued that attention is increasingly being paid to NGOs as potential catalysts for change. NGOs have large supporter bases and can claim to function in alternative ways which promote social cohesion. The NGO community is not always at one with the Commission. The Commission's practice of providing funding for selected NGOs and preferring to work with EU-level umbrella organisations risks undermining the autonomy of the NGOs and their suitability as representatives of the socially excluded.
	Warleigh's work provides a key checklist to assess how well an NGO could contribute to developing social cohesion within the EU. Key factors from that list include the following, which are quite important. Does the NGO demonstrate an ability to construct policy coalitions in the EU, through a track record of collaboration with other NGOs? Does it demonstrate independence by relying only on funding from non-official sources, rather than state funds? Does it demonstrate democratic internal governance, through the participation of supporters? Is there an increasing awareness of, and engagement with, EU decision-making? Does it have the ability to be self-critical? Finally, does it have a large base of supporters willing to participate in the decision-making? Results of research into these key NGO variables and indicators in an EU context have not been particularly encouraging. On the seven factors studied that I just mentioned, NGOs were rated above average in three, below average in one, and low in the other three. There were no high ratings.
	The dangers of growing social exclusion throughout the EU are severe, and the urgent need to promote and develop social cohesion is unquestionably ever more pressing. It would, however, be optimistic to assume that the NGO community as a whole is able smoothly and rapidly to take on roles in support of, or as an alternative to, formal EU or nation-state resources. There is no doubt that some NGOs have been able to accept the challenges of operating at an EU level, but there are many others whose skills and experience could make a significant contribution to strengthening social cohesion, providing that the Government were committed to offering the support and guidance needed.
	I hope that when the Minister responds, he can give the House some guidance on exactly where the Government stand in that regard.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, some very interesting themes have been enunciated in this debate so far. I am grateful, as I am sure are others, to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who has a lot of experience in these fields, particularly with charities and young people, I believe. We are grateful for his remarks and his initiative in launching this debate. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Chidgey for what he said, particularly for his reference to focusing on NGOs in the future in a wider sense than is currently the case and how that will develop.
	There will inevitably be confusion about these matters until they become resolved later on. Another reason we look forward to the Minister's response today is that he will perhaps try to clarify some of those juxtapositions of national policy and European policy in the future. We are speaking against the backdrop of the relaunch of the so-called Lisbon mark II agenda for economic modernisation under the auspices of Wim Kok. I was glad that when it was relaunched in February 2005 the Commission repeatedly emphasised that the social background was just as important as the economic background. Those European member states, including Britain, that do not want to see the increasing, excessive Americanisation of British and other European societies, through economic processes becoming primordial to the exclusion of social factors, have a duty to their various publics—the Minister is answering for the British Government of course—to make sure that that does not happen. I may be old fashioned but, notwithstanding a long personal career in the City, finance and business, I have always believed that if society is concerned exclusively with making money and nothing else matters, as is virtually the case in the United States, apart from a few sturdy souls who keep trying despite all the pressures, society gradually disintegrates. That is when you see social exclusion, particularly among young people. They feel alienated and that if they do not have a job, it is implicitly their fault rather than down to society, circumstances and so on. I utterly reject those considerations for modern, civilised European society. The European Union and its member states have something more to offer society, particularly young society, than the rather lugubrious message of the American economic model.
	Disturbingly, the emphasis in Britain tends to be on economic activity rather than on the social part of that model. France, Germany, Italy and Spain, on the other hand, are much criticised in the Right-wing British newspapers—they tend to be more like comics than newspapers now, I am sad to say—for being weak and backward in insisting on introducing the social component in different but important ways. They can be good examples for us.
	However, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others, raise complex matters about the future mechanisms in the European context. We have the European Social Fund and know that it is channelled through Governments in all the member states. In this country, the Department for Work and Pensions is primarily responsible for ensuring that those funds are channelled through the national Government and then dispersed in accordance with the procedures and modalities to local communities at a lower level. Should that be radically changed in the future? Is that not the right way for these relationships to continue, albeit with expanded budgets perhaps? The European Union budget—it is very virtuous because it has no deficit intrinsically, unlike national budgets, because its receipts more or less equal its payments—is very small in total, particularly for the European Social Fund, when compared with what national member governments can do. Therefore, the primary emphasis must be on what Governments do and how they link with NGOs in a national sense rather than in a pan-European sense. However, the pan-European dimension presumably will develop because that has already been accepted by the Commission, with the European Council in the background, as was mentioned by previous speakers. They have accepted the notion that there will be a European level of co-ordination and of persuading national NGOs to have more national umbrella organisations. I think that it is still a very limited development—I see that my noble friend Lord Chidgey is nodding—and that a lot of work is still to be done before we reach that stage.
	I imagine, however, that the member states will wish the existing national mechanisms to persist. Within that, various ideas need to be brought into play to deal with aspects of the future that we will be handling as the years unfold. Assuming that there will be budget increases in the future, perhaps the Minister will also refer to that possibility, because the money is inevitably limited at European level.
	When President Barroso was talking about the national reform programmes last year and this year, he said:
	"Inspiration is close to home. All the Member States are bringing to the party ideas that others can adapt and adopt and I congratulate them. But progress is still uneven and the Commission will step up its effort to drive the process. This Report already shows we won't be a silent partner. We'll give credit where it's due and constructive criticism where it can help".
	He was talking primarily about the economic modernisation programmes in each member state, left substantially to private activity and private enterprise, but that can be the model for NGOs and charities in the member states and their future umbrella co-ordinating organisations in the wider European context. Will the Government encourage this when they meet other European Ministers dealing with social affairs?
	I share the concern of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the excessive number of people that we have in prison here, including people on remand. The figure is very high when compared with other same-population countries in the Union. I am concerned also by the incidents of young people being in prison for longer and longer terms, as well as in the junior correction institutions, which also face a separate but no less daunting problem of increasing numbers. How will society deal with these problems in the future and make sure that those people are no longer excluded socially, economically and therefore politically to some extent—they vote less and less, as we know, in elections here and elsewhere? What can the European community do at a wider level to achieve those objectives? These are complex matters. My inclination is to say that the national mechanisms should remain as the main mechanisms for the future in terms of the channelling of money and the way in which public and taxpayers' money goes to NGOs and charities, but there should be European co-ordinating activity as well. Perhaps the Minister will explain his and the Government's proclivities in these fields when he comes to reply.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for securing this debate. Social cohesion, or the lack of it, has a profound impact on many areas of our lives. It is clear in this country that many of the ills that beset society today, from gun crime to high incidences of disease, can be directly related to sections of society that are socially and economically excluded or disadvantaged. What is true in this country can only be more so throughout the rest of Europe. The differences in living standards between areas of the UK are nothing when compared with those across Europe. The consequences of this social divide are equally real and affect us all on a proportionally large scale.
	The unequal social and economic opportunities that exist in many of those central and eastern European countries that have recently joined the European Union have had many unfortunate consequences for our society already. We have all read the disturbing stories of women trafficked across Europe and forced into prostitution. Drug trafficking also follows similar routes. And with the recent worry over avian flu, the importance of raising health and safety standards in these countries cannot be overstated. All these problems will only get worse with the eventual accession of Bulgaria and Romania, both countries which have far lower GDPs per capita than the current EU average.
	This bleak picture is fortunately not the whole story. The enlargement of the EU has brought equal benefits to our society, from the army of hard working Europeans who are providing much needed skills in many job sectors from the service industry to the health service, to the opportunities for British industries to expand their overseas market into new countries.
	With such clear opportunities I am glad that there is an appreciation of the urgent need to address the problems. The EU structural funds and the cohesion fund are trying to do this. Of course, addressing social inequality does not come free, and available funds should be concentrated on those who need them most. Many people are fed up with their taxes being given to those who have no need of the money. For rich countries to give money to each other via the enormously costly European bureaucracy is ridiculous—countries that can afford to target social deprivation within their borders should do so. It is the countries that cannot afford it that need to be helped.
	It is, of course, not only a matter of money. We have seen enough examples of wasteful government spending in this country to see that throwing money at the problem will not solve it. We need to ensure that the money is spent effectively. As we have finally come to realise in this country, the best results are often achieved when non-governmental organisations have a significant role in the process.
	Again, what is true in this country is doubly true for Europe. Many of the recent entrants to the EU have significant problems with government waste and corruption. Again, this will be exacerbated when Bulgaria and Romania join the EU. It is therefore imperative that the European funds, which are rightly directed to improving the social and economic balance of Europe, take account of this when allocating the money to be spent.
	This is quite a challenge. The countries which need financial assistance most are also those whose third sector is the most undeveloped. European funds therefore need to be even more carefully considered to ensure that they are accessible to the organisations already in existence and to encourage the formation of new ones.
	The necessary steps are clear. One of the most useful would be, as has already been mentioned, cutting red tape and regulation. It is clear that, even in this country, excessive red tape is preventing many smaller organisations working productively with the Government. How much more true must this be in countries which have a weaker third sector than us?
	I hope that the growing appreciation of non-governmental organisations will rapidly lead to improvements in this area. The goal of a socially cohesive Europe is an achievable one. It would bring enormous benefits to society right across Europe. I can only hope that this Government play a full role in promoting this goal.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for initiating the debate and for his well constructed and heartfelt argument about social inclusion and exclusion in the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, accurately described the issues that we have to address as complex. Social exclusion is very complex, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, also said.
	The NGOs have a vital role to play in fostering greater social cohesion both in the United Kingdom and at EU level. Partnership with civil society helps deliver our objectives on the ground but also feeds back experience from the work into the policy-makers, challenging us to make our policies in a way that is more relevant and more effective. The EU has helped to bring peace and prosperity to millions of people but it has not been a straightforward journey. Post-war reconstruction meant economic hardship for those in the West and political repression for those in the east. The collapse of communist regimes brought freedom to millions but also a grim and disastrous war on the very borders of the European Union.
	Today we look at a united continent of 450 million people from the Atlantic to the Black Sea—the largest trading block in the world. It is essentially democratic, politically stable and has widely shared social values underpinned by historically strong economic performance. Judgments about cohesion, or the lack of it, need to start from this point. Strong European economic performance is essential if we are to continue to deliver social goals. The treaty has committed the EU to pursuing a high level of employment and social protection, the raising of standards of living and quality of life and improving social cohesion and solidarity. Twenty-five years of a single market have advanced those goals enormously.
	The 10-year Lisbon strategy was put in place in 2000. Since then we have seen 6 million new jobs created across Europe. A fundamental modernisation of social protection systems is under way throughout Europe. We have to maintain our ability to look after people when they fall sick or on hard times or are excluded, particularly the young, as the noble Earl has said. We have to look after people when they are in those difficulties. Those are the key elements of increasing social cohesion. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that we need to focus help on those who need it the most and make sure that that is where our focus is maintained.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, the Lisbon strategy has been reviewed and upgraded. It makes jobs and growth the priority for Europe. The underlying philosophy is that work remains the best route out of poverty and that it probably keeps the largest number of people out of prison and away from recidivism. It is also the best way to bind people at risk of exclusion into wider society.
	At the Hampton Court summit during the UK presidency, EU heads reached broad agreement on the future priorities for Europe's economic and social policies. The UK is responding to these new challenges and opportunities for the 21st century, as is the rest of the EU through its commitments at Hampton Court to build better universities and get more people into higher education, ensure future energy security, improve the security of Europe's citizens and develop a better analysis of the democratic shifts in Europe so that we can meet future needs. I will not go through all the others, but it is important to look at the work of many of the most successful NGOs, which have been so important in other areas on the global stage. These areas include the issue of aid; the issue of debt cancellation; the issue of the environment and reducing carbon emissions; the issue of the Doha development round, which promotes global growth and helps the poorest out of poverty.
	In all this I have no doubt that NGOs play an essential role in shaping the delivery of the Lisbon agenda, the EU's wider objectives and many other things that are socially valuable and have been mentioned in this evening's debate. Every year NGOs are involved at national and EU level in analysis of progress towards the Lisbon targets and greater social inclusion. For example, the key tool for sharing best practice and benchmarking progress on inclusion across Europe is the annual social inclusion national action plan, produced by every member state and into which the NGOs feed. More widely, the EU consults NGOs regularly, through bodies such as the European Social Forum. Before Hampton Court we hosted a social summit to solicit NGO, social partner and other stakeholder views on what should be the key economic reform priorities in Europe. NGOs such as the European Anti-Poverty Network, AGE and Caritas now have formal consultative roles in the annual spring council meeting of EU heads, which focuses on economic reform.
	Similar processes are at work in the United Kingdom. For example, we have held more than 140 workshops at which grassroots organisations and people experiencing poverty communicated their views on social inclusion in order to design a national action plan on social inclusion that meets the real needs of real people. We welcome their experience and advice. We support NGO involvement, achieved through these consultative mechanisms in the new Lisbon national reform programmes. We continue to consult widely on all aspects of national economic reform policy and delivery. Working with NGOs at every level has to be a partnership, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has said. This is often the most effective way of delivering on the ground—I will return to that point in a moment—and of progressing the shared values of the NGOs and the institutions concerned. There will, of course, be examples where an alternative means of delivery is needed, but this is a question of common sense and flexibility, not of excluding the NGOs.
	I know the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has a particular and long standing involvement in Croatia and the western Balkans. I would like to give a small example of the work going on there. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is funding and working in partnership with local and international NGOs in pre-accession states to promote social inclusion. It works with organisations such as Save the Children in Serbia and Montenegro; it promotes the integration of ethnic minorities into education, with a special focus on the inclusion of Roma children. Polio International is another such project in Kosovo. By supporting the European ambitions of these countries and EU members we drive institutional economic reform, which, in its turn, promotes growth and prosperity.
	The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a number of points with which I simply agree. The third sector adds value to society and we should encourage NGOs in that role. It is also quite true that partnerships are the best way of ensuring that this happens. There is always good reason to look at structural and cohesion funding. I was asked whether the agreement on the EU budget for 2007-2013, reached at the end of the UK's presidency in December, will be adequate over the next period. It foresees a sevenfold increase in the spending in new member states. They will receive structural and cohesion funding worth €174 billion over that period. Most of them believe that to be a very significant step.
	I am quite intrigued by the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, to define more of these matters. Academics are always encouraged to get into these things and I am quite tempted, but I shall resist. The Prime Minister's combination of factors was a good start. The creation of a new post, occupied by my right honourable friend Hilary Armstrong, to bind those issues together in the United Kingdom is very important. It would be a pity if the suggested checklisting system—and perhaps I am overstating the case—became in itself a source of great bureaucracy. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, called for cutting red tape. I think a very exhaustive system might limit NGOs in what they can do, as they try to respond to its demands. That is only because I am keen that their spirit of adventure and innovation should remain one of their liveliest characteristics.
	There are a number of definitions of social inclusion. They are relatively different in different countries; that is perfectly true. I was just looking through them. In a way, that is to be expected among the different traditions through which social policy is being developed in different European nations. I would be more than willing to enter into a debate, at least on paper or through e-mail, about how those different sorts of definitions might work.
	The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, made some very important points. First, on the question of the democratic deficit, or the gap between the EU and its citizens, I agree that we need to find new ways to allow more communication and greater transparency; that is plainly true. The discussion that will take place this coming weekend in Austria on the future of Europe is intended to address some of those issues.
	The main point that I make to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, who has raised some important points about how this hangs together, is that there is an inherent structural problem with organisations of the size of the EU, or indeed any member state. They are very big bodies, and they take a long time to turn around. They are dealing with NGOs, which have been described as ranging almost from big organisations to individuals. That is not always an easy relationship to manage, and I do not think that any of us wants to get into trying to micromanage that; I do not believe that we could do so even if we wished to. There is a structural tension, and we need the kind of intervening bodies that make it possible to ensure that NGOs are supported and their work is credible, but that they are not micromanaged, and also that they can give a proper, transparent account of the money that they have received, which makes people feel that the money have been well spent.
	We need to try to find some of these new methods, and we most certainly will try to do so. I will take serious account of the points that have been made in the debate as we try to develop those methodologies. It will probably be something of a bumpy ride; between the colossus of the EU and the smallest NGO. But it must be worth trying.

Lord Lyell: I am so glad that the Minister clarified my fears, since he was speaking about banning orders and other shocking things of which he will no doubt be aware, as I certainly am.
	However, can the Minister clarify one point for me? As he pointed out, Amendment No. 163 relates to Clause 46. Amendment No. 163 refers to page 47 of the Bill, which refers to Section 166 of the original Act. I am sure the Minister will be pleased that I have that Act beside me. So we will have to play a game of bingo tonight, looking at the three of them.
	Amendment No. 163 says:
	"in paragraph (a) . . . insert 'or otherwise dispose of'".
	First, what does this mean? Secondly, why is it included in the amendment? It is certainly nowhere in the original 1994 Act. I am sure that the Minister will say that ticket touting is a completely separate subject of policing and public order. What I want to know, however, is what on earth "or otherwise dispose of" means. Does it preclude a wicked four-letter word beginning with "g", as in "give"? If you find that you cannot go to occupy your seat, and find a young man or friend who is quite happy to do so with no financial transaction or danger, do the words "or otherwise dispose of" preclude a gift? Just in case the Minister is worried, I am not sending a Rangers man into the Celtic end; I would not be quite as mad as that at a segregated or, in England, designated match. Will those words preclude giving—for no consideration at all, to somebody who is going to cause no trouble and will be an exemplary spectator and behave—a ticket? Who is going to prove that an offence might have committed?
	Will the Minister clarify why, after 12 years, we have "or otherwise dispose" in the amendment? I do not find it in the original Act, or any definition of it in the Bill, let alone the amendment. I would be grateful if he could clarify that for me.

Lord Lyell: I say to the Minister, "Good try". Indeed, I was in his position in 1980, having to deal with Scottish hooliganism in the context of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act. I will not tempt him tonight by asking whether this Bill applies to the lovely town of Berwick, which, as I am sure he knows, is in England, but where matches are usually played under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Football Association.
	I detected—I will be tactful and put it politely—that the Minister was doing his best. One really wants to have it absolutely clear whether a situation is innocent. The Minister said that it would be all right if it involved a brother. But if a senior policeman says he does not believe it is the case, does it put the onus of proof on a perfectly innocent ticket holder, who for some reason, such as illness or bereavement, cannot go and passes the ticket on? On whom is the burden of proof? I say to the Minister, "Nice try" but I hope that he and the Government can come up with a helpful definition of "or otherwise disposed of". I enjoyed the example of buying a green and white scarf for £100. But I declare an interest in that I obtain tickets for major sporting events and I give them to my friends as a gift. It may not necessarily be a designated match, as we find in the original Act, the Bill, and the amendment. Is that what the Minister quite beautifully called, "an innocent transaction"? But to whom is it innocent? Will I have to go to court to prove it? As the Minister explained, it seems to me that the forces of law and order, the police, can say, "We don't believe you, buster. See you in court!" Could the Minister give me some reassurance—if not tonight, then at a later stage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 re-enacted with considerable amendments the notification requirements on offenders convicted or cautioned for sexual offences, now commonly referred to as the sex offenders register. The notification requirements have proved to be an invaluable tool for gathering information that enables the police to monitor sex offenders and to assess the risks they pose to the community, as they are required to by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	However, we are now of the view that further powers are required to enable the police to gather all the information they need about a small but, it has to be said, determined group of offenders who, while in apparent compliance with the notification requirements, do all they can to frustrate the risk assessment process.
	This amendment will allow the police to seek a warrant from the magistrates' court to enter and search, by force if necessary, the premises of such people, be they the last home address they notified to the police in accordance with the notification requirements or other premises where there are reasonable grounds to believe they are residing or are to be regularly found, to ensure they have all the information that they require.
	I am aware that we have previously resisted efforts to introduce a similar power. In doing so, we took the view—one supported at the time by the Association of Chief Police Officers—that the power was unnecessary. But we have kept our position under review, and we are now persuaded that the measure is necessary. In reaching that decision, we have listened carefully to the views of those, such as the police, who are engaged in managing the risks posed by offenders.
	We have also followed events in Scotland closely, and I know that the Parliament there is seeking for their police a similar power, as tabled in the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, following Professor Irving's recommendation in his report on managing offenders, which was commissioned as a result of the tragic murder of an eight year-old boy by a registered sex offender in 2004.
	It may be helpful if I give noble Lords an example of the problem that we seek to address. Mr X was considered by the police to be a medium-risk offender. None the less, he hampered their efforts to confirm his place of residence or perform other duties that might assist the risk assessment process. In doing so, he was aware that the police had no power to demand entry to his premises. On two occasions, the police monitored the address, and, while they discovered he was at his registered address for very limited periods, there was insufficient evidence that he was in breach of the notification requirements. Therefore, the police did not have reasonable grounds for entering or searching his property using their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
	Subsequently, further information was received that he had been seen with a five year-old. The police attended his address and, using powers of entry and search to find the child, discovered that the offender was in possession of a computer. Despite the fact that he had denied any relationship with a child, there were lollipops, sweets and a child's bike on the premises. That information would have benefited the police in their management of the offender, had they had it much sooner. The fact that he had access to the internet and was keeping objects clearly intended to appeal to children significantly increased the risk he posed and therefore the management that he required.
	That is an example of how this power of entry and search to assess risk should assist the police in better management of offenders by providing them with the best information available. With the information they gather, the police may decide to apply for preventative orders, which place prohibitions on the offender, and may disclose information to schools in the vicinity of which the individual is residing.
	PACE affords the police some powers of search and entry in relation to those on the sex offenders register, but clearly there are some gaps; namely, the inability to enter and search in circumstances which fall short of arousing a suspicion that an offence—either failure to comply with notification requirements or a substantive sexual offence—has been committed. The amendment seeks to fill those gaps.
	This is not a blanket power to enter the homes of registered sex offenders. The amendment states that the police will require a warrant, issued by a magistrate, to enter an offender's home and that an application must be made by a senior police officer, not below the rank of superintendent.
	In addition, a constable must have sought entry to the premises and been denied on at least two previous occasions. This will ensure that the power is used only in appropriate cases and against those offenders who, by their very actions, have displayed unwillingness to co-operate with the authorities. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: At Second Reading, noble Lords from around the House asked whether we needed further legislation on the alcohol-related disorder provisions in Part 1. Many noble Lords suggested that existing legislation could deal with the problem adequately. A wide variety of powers are available to the courts to deal with the behaviour that the drinking banning orders seek to address. One of the key powers is surely the anti-social behaviour order, which my amendment seeks to address.
	The Government have advanced the argument that drinking banning orders are different from anti-social behaviour orders, particularly because an ASBO must be awarded for a minimum of two years, whereas drinking banning orders will have a minimum length of two months. This argument can be easily overcome by a straightforward amendment to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as my amendment demonstrates. Why not have ASBOs of not less than three months instead of two years? If an anti-social behaviour order can prevent someone entering a certain premises, why could it not be used to prevent someone entering licensed premises and buying alcohol? An ASBO can do exactly what a drinking banning order can do, and more besides. If this is the case, why do the Government waste their time devising the new order that achieves no more than an ASBO might already do?
	Arguments which compare the consequences of breaching an anti-social behaviour order with the consequences of breaching a drinking banning order also fail to justify the new order. It is proposed that a person who is subject to a drinking banning order but who breaches that order can be found guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine. The breach of an ASBO can quite rightly result in a custodial sentence, so an ASBO is a more versatile type of order which gives the courts greater powers to ensures that its order are enforced. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but it is the kind of argument that the Government advance time and time again against many of the amendments that I move, so what is seen as sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
	The Minister might also argue that drinking banning orders can be awarded more easily and to a lesser standard of proof than that required to award an anti-social behaviour order. Well, indeed. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made that very point on our first day in Committee. If that is the case, is the introduction of a drinking banning order really just an attempt by the Government, in the interests of expediency, to circumvent the judicial safeguards surrounding the imposition of an anti-social behaviour order? If the Government are serious about tackling the behaviour that we all agree should be tackled, have they considered the alternative of ensuring that courts have the sufficient capacity and resources to ensure that ASBOs can be awarded without delay?
	My amendment would have the hugely beneficial result of ensuring that anti-social behaviour orders could do the job that we need for a minimum of three months. We would not need drinking banning orders, and we would save a lot of paper and a lot of time, because we could remove 11 clauses from the Bill. That, I think, could do everyone a favour. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness has described very well what her amendment would do, and I do not intend to do the same.
	Anti-social behaviour orders are an important tool in addressing anti-social behaviour—something we now all appear to agree is very serious. They are preventive and offer individuals a final chance to bring their behaviour under control or face criminal penalties. ASBOs impose restrictions on the behaviour of individuals who have behaved anti-socially, and protect communities from longstanding and highly intimidating conduct. It is our belief that a minimum period of two years is right. It was established to reflect the need for the orders to bring respite to communities and to allow for an individual's behaviour to be changed. ASBOs are designed to protect the community, not to punish the perpetrator. Where behaviour improves or there is a need to amend conditions, ASBOs can be varied or discharged before the end of the two-year period with the consent of those concerned.
	However, we acknowledge that two years is a long time in the life of a younger person. We recently announced a one-year review for young people. That should provide an important safeguard in ensuring that young people are receiving the support that they need to prevent them breaching the terms of their ASBO and causing further harm to the community. Patterns of behaviour may have changed significantly in a year. This measure provides the checks and balances necessary to take account of that. On 20 December 2005, Home Office Ministers announced that they would seek to make this practice universal, subject to consultation with stakeholders and space in the parliamentary timetable.
	Anti-social behaviour orders are prompted by behaviour that needs to be controlled. Thus, the orders must be allowed to operate for a reasonable time to ensure that anti-social behaviour is not simply stopped temporarily, but is addressed in the longer term. I believe that this amendment would seriously endanger that objective. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
	Government Amendment No. 177 in this group is a consequence of earlier Amendments Nos. 18 and 165 to the drinking banning orders provisions and the new clause amending anti-social behaviour legislation. It responds to the uncertainties created by the Boorman case which was decided in November of last year.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for his reply. It does not surprise me. The Government seem wedded to legislation that is new even if it will not do any particular good by extending anti-social behaviour orders. The noble Lord says that the Government believe that two years as a minimum for an anti-social behaviour order is right because the objective of an ASBO is to protect the community and not to punish the perpetrator. I think that I must have missed something on the first full day in Committee because I thought that that was the same thing that the drinking banning order was supposed to have as its objective. But if the Government are saying that it is different, it means that drinking banning orders are not to protect the community but are to punish the perpetrator. I find that even stranger. It is a strange hybrid. It pretends to be a civil matter with a civil penalty, but it can have serious effects on individuals and on crime results.
	I think that this is one of those headline-grabbing Bills. My honourable friends in another place made it clear that they felt that there were better ways of approaching the Chapter 1 "Drinking banning orders" that the Government sought. I know that they divided in another place on this amendment, and I am going to give the Committee the opportunity to show its view on the same matter. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I now enter the more peaceful waters of happy slapping. I hasten to say that the amendment is probing at this stage.
	Having just provided the Government the opportunity to strip this Bill of 11 clauses, I am now being more helpful by trying to put another one in. The amendment would insert a new offence of recording a criminal offence for personal gratification—otherwise known as happy slapping, if you read the Evening Standard or other such newspapers. Noble Lords will be all too aware from press reports that there has been much concern about the prevalence of a new sort of activity. People who have a ready access to a camera phone or a smart phone that takes still or video pictures use them to record a criminal event, which usually involves a group kicking, beating or sometimes raping an individual. The pictures are then transmitted to others on the basis that they can all have a good laugh at the victim and applaud the criminal. Often the pictures are posted on the internet.
	One difficult issue is that pictures may be posted on the internet with a silly tag line, so that if one goes on the internet and looks up a place name or person's name, one may find that a link comes up that looks as though it is wholly innocent, because it looks as if it is a joke, but when one goes into it, what one brings up is the footage of happy slapping. Having been warned about that, I decided to take a controlled experiment and look it up, via the BBC website—I see one or two noble Lords beginning to take an interest—as what more innocent website could there be? So, I put in "happy slapping" to see what I got. One link was, indeed, to a very serious article from Arlington, Texas, about the way that we have exported happy slapping from here to Texas—strange but true, it seems. It said that research had been done on this, and there was a link to click. When I clicked on it, what came up appeared to be an innocent linkage. I then decided that it was not necessarily a good idea to open it, just in case, as I would not want the parliamentary website being forced to track me—we do not need ID cards round here, as we are tracked by the Government—so I did not do so. What I did, through Google, was to look at what further information there was about it. Once you went into that, which most people would not bother to do, you then found it was a summary of five different camera-phone incidents that had been taken in Arlington, Texas that showed people being given a good kicking. An innocent user of the internet could easily get into that.
	Of course, in the first instance, to take the footage is a despicable way to behave. The whole purpose behind it is for people to enjoy watching—not to encourage others to commit the offences, which would obviously be a conspiracy—but simply for the person, in some sick way, to enjoy what they have seen. Incidents reported in the press here have ranged from minor assaults to the killing of the Soho barman, David Morley, in a gang attack on the South Bank in London in October 2004—all recorded and circulated on mobile phones.
	It is thought that this kind of activity began in south London but I understand that it has spread, as mentioned, to America and throughout Europe. That is not an export of which we can be proud. It is time that we try to do something, and make a stand against that behaviour. So, Amendment No. 167 introduces a new offence that would make it illegal for any person intentionally,
	"to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another".
	I always think of the word "intentionally" when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is in his place, as his amendments always focus on that.
	I am trying to ensure there that those who record criminal events for the purposes of prosecuting the same are not caught out by my new offence. I want to protect the police and journalists who take pictures and pass them to the police, using them in a perfectly laudable way. I also want to protect quick-thinking members of the public such as those who were present at the horrendous events in London last summer and took video footage or still pictures on their cameras and handed those to the police. I am sure that those were utterly invaluable in backing up CCTV footage. So, I want to protect all those innocent applications and reasons for taking pictures, while trying to get at those who take pictures for a sick purpose.
	If the Minister believes that the drafting of the amendment is not effective then I am happy to look at a different one. I know that in another part of the Bill the Government have created an offence regarding firearms and then listed specific defences—people who can be excluded, by profession. If the Government feel that would be the better approach, I am happy to look at that. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Baroness has our full support on this amendment. She described the conduct as "despicable": it is vicious and dangerous. It can lead to the filming of potentially fatal attacks on people, as has happened previously. On the question of gratification, what came into my mind when listening to the noble Baroness were the pictures taken of Iraqi detainees inside the barracks—who were, it is said, being kicked and beaten by members of the forces—and the obvious expressions of glee and delight that the person filming the scene had in doing that. Those are something with which we are all familiar. We do not even have to go to the internet to find an instance like that. To record an offence to gratify oneself in that way should be punished.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I, too, certainly understand the concern about happy slapping. It is an awful thing. The noble Baroness referred to one case and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made reference to prisoners being abused and filmed as the abuse was being afflicted on them. It is appalling and we obviously want to try to do what we can to deal with it. I am certainly very sympathetic towards the aims of this amendment.
	That the amendment can accurately achieve what it desires is something of which I am not entirely convinced at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that it is a probing amendment. We are not sure that, even by creating a new offence, we would be proceeding in the right direction. Such an offence would set a very important legal precedent. It would effectively criminalise the observing of an offence and it would represent a major step in extending the scope of the criminal law. Before we do that, we need very carefully to think through all the consequences.
	The existing criminal law deals satisfactorily with the primary offence of the attack itself; for example, it could constitute an assault or a wounding. Most people who record an offence would be criminally liable, either because they, too, are committing the offence being filmed or because they were involved in the planning of the offence. They would thereby be open to charges of conspiracy, incitement or aiding and abetting. So a new offence of this kind would capture only a very small group of people. That is not to say that the attempt to do so is wrong, but those people would in essence be those who embarked on that course of action with a purely malicious intent but who would perhaps not be otherwise involved or implicated.
	Moreover, where a violent offence has taken place and there is a happy-slapping element, this should be taken into account as an aggravating factor under current sentencing guidelines. So there is a way in which it can be built in. This type of offence would usually involve three elements: a degree of planning; offenders operating in groups or gangs; and additional degradation of the victim. Those sentencing must consider the combined aggravating effect. These factors would apply to all those committing the offence, not just to the person undertaking the filming.
	The noble Baroness alluded to the possibility that, with the offence being designed in the way in which she has done so, one might as an unintended consequence capture people who are attempting to provide a public service by collecting evidence, either on CCTV or through a mobile phone that makes a video recording. So we would have to be very careful on that front, too.
	So while we abhor the practice of happy slapping, we are not convinced that the offence proposed in this way by the amendment would tackle the problem that has been identified. However, it clearly is a problem and we certainly do not rule out giving it further consideration. For the moment, sympathetic though we are, given the magnitude of the step that we would be taking in extending the criminal law in this way, we should approach the subject with some caution and some further reflection. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I would not have thought that one was extending the criminal law to a great extent. I refer noble Lords back to the prize-fighting of the 18th and 19th centuries. People who attended a prize fight could find themselves being charged with the criminal offence of encouraging the fight to take place. To the degree that photographing an incident like this encourages, that is already a criminal offence. However, something specific in modern terms—as opposed to going back to the common law—in which one expressed the offence as videoing an incident of this sort, would bring it home to people much more quickly.
	The alternative would be to suggest to the Crown Prosecution Service, through the Attorney-General, that it should consider prosecuting people on the basis of encouragement and incitement when the circumstances come to light in a particular case. If there were a test case, I am sure that, having regard to the press publicity for happy slapping, that would equally bring home to people nationwide that this practice could very well be regarded as a serious criminal offence already.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 168, 169, 171, 172 and 174 deal with consequential issues arising from the provisions of Clause 24, which sets out the penalties in relation to using someone to mind a weapon. These amendments are minor repeals, consequential upon the fact that in some instances the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon will attract a minimum custodial sentence. These amendments are required to ensure consistency between the provisions of Clause 24 and the sentences set out in other legislation. As such, they are a tidying-up exercise.
	Amendment No. 173 is a consequential issue arising from a provision of Clause 46, empowering the Secretary of State to designate football matches, by statutory instrument, for the purposes of ticket touting legislation—Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This amendment is a minor repeal, consequential upon the fact that currently ticket touting legislation receives its designation from the Football Spectators Act 1989, which designates by the Football Spectators (Prescription) Order 2006. This order is primarily drafted to reflect the required designations for football banning order legislation. The aim throughout is to empower the police to act against ticket touting in circumstances where their activity increases public order risks through a breakdown in the segregation of rival fans. The motivation is not commercial. That is a matter for the DTI or the DCMS to pursue in appropriate legislation. I beg to move.